Exploring the Rule-of-Law Approach to Collaborative Data Security Governance in BRICS
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-3-32-55
Abstract
Data has become a foundational strategic resource in the digital age, and data security has emerged as a crucial issue that affects national security, economic development, and social stability. With the expansion of data sovereignty approach and the collective rise of the “Global South,” the BRICS countries have initiated their respective data legislation processes and changed the passive position of developing countries in the formulation of international data rules through coordinated governance. However, the BRICS still face challenges, including divergences in core legal concepts, legal barriers to cross-border data flow, and a legal vacuum in coordinated dispute resolution. In the context of intensifying global competition over data rules, promoting collaborative governance in the field of data security among the BRICS countries holds significant strategic importance. Only by first building consensus among developing countries on data-driven collaborative empowerment, then establishing a multi-level legal framework for collaborative data security governance, and finally putting in place a regular mechanism for cooperation on digital sovereignty can the digital economy’s potential be fully unlocked and the voice of developing countries in international rule-making be effectively strengthened.
About the Authors
Zhang Shanshan
Northeast Normal University
China
China
Shanshan Zhang – Associate Professor, School of Politics and Law
2555 Jingyue St., Nanguan District, Changchun City, Jilin Province, 130117
Bu Fandi
Northeast Normal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Fandi Bu – Postgraduate Student, School of Politics and Law
2555 Jingyue St., Nanguan District, Changchun City, Jilin Province, 130117
References
1. Andreeva, E. L. (2026). The problems of information sovereignty in the BRICS countries. BRICS Law Journal, 13(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-1-76-88
2. Bannerman, S. (2024). Platform imperialism, communications law and relational sovereignty. New Media & Society, 26(4), 1816–1833. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221077284
3. De Filippi, P., & McCarthy, S. (2012). Cloud computing: Centralization and data sovereignty. European Journal of Law and Technology, 3(2), 1–18.
4. Gromova, E., & Brantes Ferreira, D. (2024). On the way to BRICS+ digital sovereignty: Opportunities and challenges of a new era. BRICS Law Journal, 11(3), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2024-11-3-54-69
5. Hall, H. K. (2018). Restoring dignity and harmony to United States–European Union data protection regulation. Communication Law and Policy, 23(2), 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2018.1429773
6. Heller, K. J. (2021). In defense of pure sovereignty in cyberspace. International Law Studies, 97(1), 1432–1499.
7. Jiang, W., & Long, W. (2023). Principles of digital law. People’s Court Press. (In Chinese).
8. Johnson, D. R., & Post, D. (1996). Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 48(5), 1367–1402. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229390
9. Juan, X. (2024). China’s approach to the game of data sovereignty rules. Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 44(6), 58–78. (In Chinese).
10. Leifeld, P., & Schneider, V. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00580.x
11. Li, C. (2024). The dilemma and enlightenment of developing countries in responding to GDPR cross-border data transfer rules: A case study of India. Wuhan University International Law Review, 8(4), 76–93. (In Chinese).
12. Snyder, F. (1994). Soft law and institutional practice in the European Community. In S. Martin (Ed.), The construction of Europe: Essays in honour of Emile Noël (pp. 197– 225). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8368-8_10
13. Sun, N., & Zhang, X. (2015). On data sovereignty: An examination based on virtual space game and cooperation. Pacific Journal, 23(2), 63–71. (In Chinese).
14. Sun, Q., & Kharitonova, Yu. (2022). Legislative characteristics and trends of Russian cross-border data flow in the context of data sovereignty. Russian Studies, 2, 89–107. (In Russian).
15. Woods, A. K. (2016). Against data exceptionalism. Stanford Law Review, 68(3), 729–789.
16. Xie, Z., & Yang, S. (2021). Cross-border data flow regulation in global governance and China’s participation: A comparative analysis based on WTO, CPTPP and RCEP. International Review, 5, 98–126. (In Chinese).
17. Xu, K. (2021). Freedom and security: China’s approach to cross-border data flow. Global Law Review, 43(1), 22–37. (In Chinese).
18. Xue, Z., & Dai, Y. (2025). The realistic challenges and rule system construction of BRICS data flow cooperation. Science and Technology Management Research, 45(22), 222–230. (In Chinese).
19. Zhang, X. (2020). Models and references for the construction of data sovereignty rules: Also on the construction of China’s data sovereignty rules. Modern Law Science, 42(6), 136–149. (In Chinese).
Review
For citations:
Shanshan Zh., Fandi B. Exploring the Rule-of-Law Approach to Collaborative Data Security Governance in BRICS. BRICS Law Journal. 2026;13(3):32-55. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2026-13-3-32-55
Views:
14
JATS XML
Email this article 